Talk:AgustaWestland Apache/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I'll review this article either later today or over the next week. Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

The article is in very good shape, but I do have some comments:

• The lead is a bit short and doesn't cover the helicopter's operational history - I'd suggest adding another paragraph which discusses their service history
• "The requirement for a new attack helicopter was identified in the early 1990s." - who identified this?
• The 'Development' section doesn't note that the Apache was an existing and combat-proven design
• "The cost of the helicopter fleet was around £3.1 billion, the high cost and questions over reliability from the Apache's service in the US led to calls for its cancellation in 1999." - this sentence seems to cover two quite different topics, and the second topic should be covered in greater detail

Significantly expanded. Kyteto (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• "When the Apache was ordered in the early 1990s, it has been assumed that the Cold War threat of a large conventional armoured assault from the Eastern Bloc was Britain's main threat." - given that the helicopter was selected in 1995 and ordered in 1996 this seems unlikely - the Eastern Block had collapsed between 1989 and 1991 and its former members were mainly on very good terms with the UK

"The decision to procure an Attack Helicopter was taken in the early 1990s. At that time, military doctrine was based on the assumption that the most likely threat to the United Kingdom was from the Eastern bloc". This is a direct quote from the source, a government report document on the Apache. It is likely military doctrine was slow to change, slow to trust, especially as some of the former Eastern Bloc did have wild economic problems, which sometimes leads to chaos and conflict, even all out-war. It wouldn't be the first time we've bought something and the circumstances make it pointless by the time it gets here, such as the upcoming Eurocopter HTH-2015 (that could have been really useful in Afghanistan if the program had gone ahead in 2004, like it was supposed to, it is effectively a modern day clean-designed Chinook....but I'm getting offtopic) Kyteto (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• More detail on the problems that delayed the Apache's entry into service would be good - at present this is unclear, and I remember reading the defence media at the time and being amazed that the British were having so many problems with what was a proven design (an 'off the shelf' purchase in Australian terminology). This is especially the case as it meant that the helicopters were unavailable to support early British operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they would have been very useful.
• "The Apache will also operate in armed reconnaissance and attacking raids as US Army Apaches do, such as during the 1991 Gulf War" - is there any reason why this is written in future tense?
• "These were drawn from No. 656 Squadron and No. 664 Squadron of 9 Regiment AAC, based at RAF Dishforth, which take turns to deploy for three months." - this sentence uses both past and present tense and is confusing as a result
• Who's Major Huw Williams? (an officer in an Apache unit, I assume?)

Identified, relatively important officer in important position, second in command of 3rd Para. Basically a leader of the ground forces that frequently get supported by the Apaches, so is in a good position/experienced. Kyteto (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• "as of November 2008 no British Apaches have been lost" - have any been lost since then?

None, I just don't have a ref to prove it. Kyteto (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You could use a recent source on the number of Apaches being operated by the British Army to establish that none have been written off to any cause. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• "None of the rescuers were injured in the recovery mission and were later hailed for their bravery." - this seems to be missing some words ('all were later hailed'?)
• "In June 2008, a British Apache deployed a thermobaric Hellfire missile" - what does 'deployed' mean in this context? - do you mean 'deployed with', 'was armed with' or 'fired'?

Fired, changed. Kyteto (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• "In June 2008, a Taliban leader and several cell members were killed in Helmand Province by a Hellfire missile launched by an Apache of the 664 Army Air Corps" - what's the significance of this incident? It seems to be a fairly routine type of operation.

Two reasons I included it originally. One was that it was apparently a major leader-type person, so perhaps notable by that; but mainly it was because I wanted to cite a good example of what the Apache typically does over there. If we never observe any instances of 'target-chasing' operations and precision strikes with the British Apache, people may conclude that there simply weren't any, which is skirting a good portion of their operational usage/role. In the future, people may that such strikes, common in general, may have been all performed by UAV platforms, which they mostly are now, which would be a bit of a distortion of conflict's history. We always see the previous generation through the eyes of our own. :P Kyteto (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

On seconds thoughts, I'm not that set on its inclusion. If you want it cut, I'll see it gone. Kyteto (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• The media coverage of the current deployment of Apaches onboard HMS Ocean has noted that this is the first time that these helicopters have been deployed onboard ships for the last few years, but this isn't noted in the article.

Current references don't seem to state this, but it is notable. Kyteto (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• More detail on the organisation of the Apache-equipped units would be good - how many Apaches are there per squadron and regiment, and when did they first receive their aircraft? Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This would be nice information to know, I'll look into it. Kyteto (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't do it. I attempted to perform the task with 'scratchings' - whatever can be scratched together from sources found that have the barest of mentions at best. It was a contradictory shambles, I simply abandoned the edit I was writing as nothing of what I was adding was solid, one RS source would state a year later than another, another would be specific about how many aircraft there was in one which would then be impossible with the amount of aircraft in the other without more Apaches popping out of thin air to exceed the numbers actually purchased and thus in existence. There's no established text that I can find on the topic to source from; cobbling it together from here there and everywhere was a pig's breakfast that was probably incorrect anyhow. I'm going to have to think on this one, but conventional means produced nothing but dizzyness and questionable 'truths'. Kyteto (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Heyman, Charles (2005). The British Army Guide. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books. ISBN 1844152804. (which was published before the Apache entered operational service, I think, states that they expected that each Apache-equipped squadron would operate eight of the helicopters (page 114), which I think that I've seen confirmed elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Added, and added date of introduction to combat operations from one find that wasn't a mess. Thanks for the book.

Kyteto (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• As another note, there have been a few books written about the operations of British Apaches in Afghanistan - I think that I've seen three or four in Australian bookstores in the last couple of years. These were written by officers in the units so probably aren't RS for our purposes, but it might be worthwhile listing them as being further reading. Or not - they do seem to be boys' and girls' own adventure type books rather than serious histories. Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a good proposal. I'll work on this now. Kyteto (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you got any specific recommendations to add to the section? The section is up and running, I've got some entries I thought of good quality/interest installed now. Kyteto (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just added another two :) Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Now standing by for an issue to focus on: Got any pointers? Kyteto (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like GA class to me. I'd suggest printing the article out and giving it a through copy edit before taking this to an A class nomination though.

Assessment against GA criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The article could do with a copy edit, but there's nothing outright bad.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   It would be good if the references to tabloid newspapers (eg, The Sun) were replaced with references to more reliable sources, but the usage of these sources is OK given what they're referencing

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: